Warriors need MORE damage

[FallenWings]

WAR should do potentially the lowest and highest, all based on their crit luck because I like crit fishing.

But yeah going through the completely limp window that is the Inner Release down time(2 minutes) for 20 seconds of euphoric cleavegasm is not fun.

[Aana]

But yeah going through the completely limp window that is the Inner Release down time(2 minutes) for 20 seconds of euphoric cleavegasm is not fun.

Pretty much. War does a perfectly fine amount of damage (relative to plds anyway). They don't need a buff of any kind. The only thing that could be reasonably changed is distribution to be lest spikey/all in on a 20 sec window with crit RNG. But that's completely unnecessary from a balance perspective. That's just a 'feel' or preference. Some people like unleashing the beast in an insane burst window. Some don't. But war is the only 'bursty' tank that exists so changing it would delete that style from the tank role entirely. So im not in a hurry to change it. If you like sustained, reliable damage pld and drk both match that style much better. No need to make them all that way for no change in balance.

[Lyth]

Warrior damage is base off off rng https://www.mooglemedia.com/releasin...w-xenosys-vex/ this interview frim xenosys-vex explains why

This strikes me as a variant of one of the gambler's fallacies.

Every critical hit is an independent event. The actual distribution of damage does not matter, as each action or attack is assessed independently of the others. You can actually show this formally if you like, as the expected value for your damage can be expressed as the integral product of your crit rate and your damage as a function of time. It actually doesn't matter how your damage over time is distributed, as long as the area under the curve (i.e. the total damage done) is a constant.

Actually, when you look at it more closely, WAR is actually more likely to land a crit on big hits like Fell Cleave than other tanks, because of how the Deliverance crit bonus works and because you're encouraged to build up to max resources (and as a result, maximum crit rate) before launching into your Fell Cleave spam. You'll see this reflected in your damage breakdown as well; there's generally a much higher crit rate on Fell Cleave than auto attacks, which are the second highest source of damage. WAR is actually privileged, rather than penalized in this regard.

I can see why the idea would be appealing; if you do poorly, you can blame crit for not occurring when it was supposed to. But the chance of this happening is the same, if not lower, than everyone else. Either way, I wouldn't rely too heavily on Xeno as a source of reliable information, and most of this article reflects that. He's more an entertainer than anything else.

[Aana]

This strikes me as a variant of one of the gambler's fallacies.

Every critical hit is an independent event. The actual distribution of damage does not matter, as each action or attack is assessed independently of the others. You can actually show this formally if you like, as the expected value for your damage can be expressed as the integral product of your crit rate and your damage as a function of time. It actually doesn't matter how your damage over time is distributed, as long as the area under the curve (i.e. the total damage done) is a constant.

Actually, when you look at it more closely, WAR is actually more likely to land a crit on big hits like Fell Cleave than other tanks, because of how the Deliverance crit bonus works and because you're encouraged to build up to max resources (and as a result, maximum crit rate) before launching into your Fell Cleave spam. You'll see this reflected in your damage breakdown as well; there's generally a much higher crit rate on Fell Cleave than auto attacks, which are the second highest source of damage. WAR is actually privileged, rather than penalized in this regard.

I can see why the idea would be appealing; if you do poorly, you can blame crit for not occurring when it was supposed to. But the chance of this happening is the same, if not lower, than everyone else. Either way, I wouldn't rely too heavily on Xeno as a source of reliable information, and most of this article reflects that. He's more an entertainer than anything else.

War gets a boost to crit rate during the window of course. What xeno is talking about (and now everyone and their mom suddenly agreeing after seeing it) is that any individual parse run is RNG based. On average it will work out well as you have a higher crit chance during burst windows than non-burst. But when you have 6 FCs, 2 onslaughts and an upheaval stuffed into a single 30% zerk+Potion window followed by comparably dead space your parse for that ONE fight instance can be dramatically different if you !! 4 of the fell cleaves and upheaval than if you crit 4 non zerked combo hits after the window.

The average over time will be fine. (FFlogs proves this easily). But there is little consistency when applying that to any individual run. Every job has crit RNG to deal with during burst windows. War's damage is just the most heavily slanted in that window and it can bork an entire parse run if you have 1-2 bad windows more than other jobs. Similarly Crit RNG will give you a huge epeen parse once in a while when you !! 6 FCs in a row during opener. Its not a 'problem' in the conventional sense. War avg damage is more than fine atm. But it lowers the consistency of war on any individual run and the player has no way to adjust. Just pray that !! is on the potion zerk FC instead of the AA.

TLDR: War damage over time averages out just fine statistically like everything else. But it luck plays a bigger role in wars parse than other jobs because such an obscene portion of their damage is focused on 2-4 narrow windows with buffs each fight. Sure youre crit rate for the fight probably wont change but the distribution of those crits being in or not in the buff windows and on the right skills has dramatic DPS effects.

Its a consistency complaint, not a power complaint. But war has always been like this. It always had obscene burst windows with old 50% zerk. Its just the nature of the class imo at this point. But I get where the frustration comes from. My LS always says "look who ate their Wheaties today!" when I have a sick opener. I just feel sad because I know im hitting the same buttons I have for the last 2 hours of practice but I got some !! on that one. 'I' didn't do that. The game decides to eat Wheaties or not. Not me. Ive always considered it in the character of warrior. You don't control the inner beast. You release it. Then it does whatever the F it wants. Works for me.

[Lyth]

I was kind of expecting to have to do this, because I knew there would be at least one person who would be obstinate about it. Here you go.

Quick disclaimer: the formatting on this is going to be difficult, so assume that integrals are taken as limits from 0 to T, where T is total fight duration.

The "expected value" of your total damage output is given by

C∫ p(t)w(t) dt

where C is the crit multiplier, p is the crit rate at a given time t, and w is your damage output as a function of time. If you're playing a job with a fixed crit rate, this simplifies to

Cp∫ w(t) dt

Xeno's argument implies that w(t) influences this value. My point is that it doesn't, so long as the area under the curve is the same. It doesn't matter if you rearrange WAR's rotation from one with heavy burst to one that has more consistent dps as long as the total damage is a constant.

Now you might say: WAR's p(t) does vary with time, because it is linked to their resource gauge. Which is correct, and is also why this is an underestimate. WAR actually is more likely to crit on higher weighted portions of their rotation than this estimate would predict. Which is why they're actually privileged, not penalised.

I know that this might seem counter-intuitive, but probability theory often is. That's why people get obsessed with perceptual errors like "winning streaks" in spite of the fact that we've proven them to be, time and time again, mathematically false. If you fail to crit on your Berserk, you'll do less damage. I get that. But it all comes out in the wash when you look at averages.

[Chrono_Rising]

I was kind of expecting to have to do this, because I knew there would be at least one person who would be obstinate about it. Here you go.

Quick disclaimer: the formatting on this is going to be difficult, so assume that integrals are taken as limits from 0 to T, where T is total fight duration.

The "expected value" of your total damage output is given by

C∫ p(t)w(t) dt

where C is the crit multiplier, p is the crit rate at a given time t, and w is your damage output as a function of time. If you're playing a job with a fixed crit rate, this simplifies to

Cp∫ w(t) dt

Xeno's argument implies that w(t) influences this value. My point is that it doesn't, so long as the area under the curve is the same. It doesn't matter if you rearrange WAR's rotation from one with heavy burst to one that has more consistent dps as long as the total damage is a constant.

Now you might say: WAR's p(t) does vary with time, because it is linked to their resource gauge. Which is correct, and is also why this is an underestimate. WAR actually is more likely to crit on higher weighted portions of their rotation than this estimate would predict. Which is why they're actually privileged, not penalised.

I know that this might seem counter-intuitive, but probability theory often is. That's why people get obsessed with perceptual errors like "winning streaks" in spite of the fact that we've proven them to be, time and time again, mathematically false. If you fail to crit on your Berserk, you'll do less damage. I get that. But it all comes out in the wash when you look at averages.

While I do not 100% agree with your expression for the expected damage, I do not believe a more detailed analysis would lead us to a different conclusion.

But this is not the reason for my posting here.

I would actually like to point out that analysis like this actually has a strict inequality for the type of functions we are dealing with, meaning that not only is this type of analysis pointing out that the lower bound is not achieved, it simultaneously points out another advantage of burst damage, raid buffs. Since raid buffs are short duration the ability to put the majority of your damage into a buff window is buffing expected damage more than a class which has flat damage through out the encounter.

This has a particular consequence, as our damage base increases through the expansion the damage between the tanks will continue to spread apart meaning we should expect the difference between warrior, paladin, and dark knight dps to separate more in the coming patches. In particular we should see warrior damage growing faster than the other tanks and dark knight growing less in comparison.

[Aana]

I was kind of expecting to have to do this, because I knew there would be at least one person who would be obstinate about it. Here you go.

Quick disclaimer: the formatting on this is going to be difficult, so assume that integrals are taken as limits from 0 to T, where T is total fight duration.

The "expected value" of your total damage output is given by

C∫ p(t)w(t) dt

where C is the crit multiplier, p is the crit rate at a given time t, and w is your damage output as a function of time. If you're playing a job with a fixed crit rate, this simplifies to

Cp∫ w(t) dt

Xeno's argument implies that w(t) influences this value. My point is that it doesn't, so long as the area under the curve is the same. It doesn't matter if you rearrange WAR's rotation from one with heavy burst to one that has more consistent dps as long as the total damage is a constant.

Now you might say: WAR's p(t) does vary with time, because it is linked to their resource gauge. Which is correct, and is also why this is an underestimate. WAR actually is more likely to crit on higher weighted portions of their rotation than this estimate would predict. Which is why they're actually privileged, not penalised.

I know that this might seem counter-intuitive, but probability theory often is. That's why people get obsessed with perceptual errors like "winning streaks" in spite of the fact that we've proven them to be, time and time again, mathematically false. If you fail to crit on your Berserk, you'll do less damage. I get that. But it all comes out in the wash when you look at averages.

Im not disagreeing with the 'expected' value. War's damage is very good. The area under the curve is large. Maybe I'm misinterpreting xeno and the related posts about war. The 'issue' being raised is not that redistributing damage from less bursty will make war do more damage or increase the area under the curve. But a redistribution would smooth out the variable performance of small RNG samples of single fights.

Extreme Scenario: (lets pretend you always hit your crit rate for simplicity)

A: Job has 1 attack GCD for 100 pot and you hit it 100 times before a fight is over with a 10% crit rate. Crits do 50% more damage. Total fight damage is 10,000 pot + 500 crit=10,500
B: Burst Job has 1 attack GCD for 10 pot and you hit it 100 times in a fight, but 10 of those hits are UltraZerk hits that do 910 potency. Total fight potency is 10,000 pot. Crits add between +100 pot and +4550 pot.

Both have the same overall potency. In an infinite number of parses steady job and bust job will average to the exact same damage. But on any 1 parse burst job could be 10,100 and 14,550 while the steady job would consistently do 10,500.

The statistical average is the same. But any 1 off can be drastically different and theres nothing you can do about it but pray the RNG is in your favor to benefit during the burst window.

This is an extreme example but the principle remains. The more a jobs damage is funneled into small enhanced windows the less reliable their damage will become. Every job has 'some' level of burst, even if its just popping a potion and hitting during a TA. But not to the same degree.

The 'issue' I see Xeno articulate is that some wars dont find this uncontrollable RNG playing so large a role in your damage on any individual instance. Not that the space in the curve isnt big enough. You cant apply the expected outcome to a singe instance when the strong burst itself is the polarizing aspect. It works out over time, sure, but it doesnt 'feel' good when it doesnt and you watch your parse go down the tubes for that run, but the tradeoff is you sometimes get the opposite man mode parses.

Your looking at the average and saying 'its fine', the complaints are aimed at the fight to fight volatility inherent in burst jobs combined with Crit/DH rng, not power. I see that volatility as right in line with war's theme and style personally, but i get why some dont like it.

[Chrono_Rising]

Im not disagreeing with the 'expected' value. War's damage is very good. The area under the curve is large. Maybe I'm misinterpreting xeno and the related posts about war. The 'issue' being raised is not that redistributing damage from less bursty will make war do more damage or increase the area under the curve. But a redistribution would smooth out the variable performance of small RNG samples of single fights.

Extreme Scenario: (lets pretend you always hit your crit rate for simplicity)

A: Job has 1 attack GCD for 100 pot and you hit it 100 times before a fight is over with a 10% crit rate. Crits do 50% more damage. Total fight damage is 10,000 pot + 500 crit=10,500
B: Burst Job has 1 attack GCD for 10 pot and you hit it 100 times in a fight, but 10 of those hits are UltraZerk hits that do 910 potency. Total fight potency is 10,000 pot. Crits add between +100 pot and +4550 pot.

Both have the same overall potency. In an infinite number of parses steady job and bust job will average to the exact same damage. But on any 1 parse burst job could be 10,100 and 14,550 while the steady job would consistently do 10,500.

The statistical average is the same. But any 1 off can be drastically different and theres nothing you can do about it but pray the RNG is in your favor to benefit during the burst window.

This is an extreme example but the principle remains. The more a jobs damage is funneled into small enhanced windows the less reliable their damage will become. Every job has 'some' level of burst, even if its just popping a potion and hitting during a TA. But not to the same degree.

The 'issue' I see Xeno articulate is that some wars dont find this uncontrollable RNG playing so large a role in your damage on any individual instance. Not that the space in the curve isnt big enough. You cant apply the expected outcome to a singe instance when the strong burst itself is the polarizing aspect. It works out over time, sure, but it doesnt 'feel' good when it doesnt and you watch your parse go down the tubes for that run, but the tradeoff is you sometimes get the opposite man mode parses.

Your looking at the average and saying 'its fine', the complaints are aimed at the fight to fight volatility inherent in burst jobs combined with Crit/DH rng, not power. I see that volatility as right in line with war's theme and style personally, but i get why some dont like it.

So Warriors are asking for their damage to be less burst (read less variable) damage and thus more sustained even if that would be an overall lowering of their expected damage?

Or you are asking for your damage to stay the same but less variable and therefore less effected by raid buffs?

[HoodRat]

Or you are asking for your damage to stay the same but less variable and therefore less effected by raid buffs?

The same but less variable

[Canadane]

Suggestion: Luck Stat